School counselors; delete requirement of counselors to abide by the American School Counselor Association Code of Ethics.
Summary
House Bill 1533 amends Mississippi Code Section 37-9-79, which governs professional school counselors in K-12 public schools. The bill removes the statutory requirement that school counselors abide by the American School Counselor Association (ASCA) Code of Ethics, while leaving the rest of the counselor framework in place. That framework still covers minimum qualifications, local school board discretion in assigning counselors, and the list of counseling services counselors are expected to provide, including academic, career, personal/social, crisis, and referral services.
The bill also preserves the existing provision that counselors spend at least 80% of their contractual time on direct student services as outlined by the ASCA, even as it deletes the separate ethics-code mandate. The State Department of Education would still be able to adopt regulations for counselor activities so long as those rules are consistent with the statute. The act is set to take effect July 1, 2025.
Impact
If enacted, HB1533 would narrow Mississippi’s statutory requirements for professional school counselors by eliminating the explicit legal obligation to follow the ASCA Code of Ethics. It would not otherwise change the licensure, degree, service-delivery, or local assignment provisions in Section 37-9-79, and it would continue to authorize the State Department of Education to regulate counselor activities within the bounds of the statute. The practical effect would be to remove one external professional ethics standard from state law while leaving counselor duties and school-district oversight largely intact.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the available context, the measure appears to be a targeted administrative/professional standards bill rather than a broad policy overhaul. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to indicate strong support or opposition. The caption suggests the bill is framed as a straightforward deletion of a specific ethics-code reference, which typically indicates a limited and technical policy change.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the removal of the ASCA Code of Ethics requirement itself. Supporters may view the change as reducing unnecessary statutory micromanagement or avoiding incorporation of an outside professional association’s code into state law. Opponents, if any, would likely argue that the ethics requirement provides an important professional accountability standard for school counselors and helps ensure consistent conduct across districts. No specific opposing stakeholders, amendments, or recorded objections are included in the provided materials.